Trump dominates, but only with less than one third. Carson does well. The others are struggling to make much of a showing, but somebody needs to emerge as the political mainstream candidate, and I think that person will be Rubio, sooner or later. Jeb Bush should figure that out and do something to help now, when it would be most helpful. Jeb's candidacy has failed. Not completely, not yet, but he hasn't built his poll numbers, he's lost ground, and his self-presentation has been weak. I like his mild manner, but it's "low energy," as Trump puts it, and, as I'd put it, just not competitive and forceful enough to gain ground in this field. Rubio, by contrast, has some combative heft.

Biden showed how to make a beautiful, graceful exit, and Jeb can do even better, because Hillary didn't need Biden's endorsement. She only needed him to get out of the way, and now she's gloriously in the lead and on track for the nomination. Oh? Do you think she might commit suicide at today's Benghazi hearing? Don't make me laugh. I'm laughing like this:

Jeb can do better than Biden, because he can embrace and throw his full support to Rubio when Rubio needs it to get traction for the hard climb to the nomination. Do it now, Jeb, when it matters so much.

ADDED: In fact, every GOP candidate who is not Trump or Carson should look around right now and figure out who, other than himself, he should support. (That includes Fiorina. I'm just using the masculine pronoun for the singular. Old-school grammar.)

@MayBee It's different this time because of the Trump/Carson phenomenon. Those who care about getting a political-mainstream candidate need to do something now, because the outsider-protest phenomenon is so strong. It needs a firm, clear answer now. In my opinion, Rubio is the best solution.

Jeb should, and eventually will, drop out, simply because despite his name recognition, lead of endorsements, and mountain of cash, he is making no headway in the polls but more importantly he's consistently revealed himself unready for this campaign which is inexcusable. Whoever faces Hillary next year will not be given any freebies--it will be ugly, dirty and harsh and Jeb is not ready for that. His feeble shots at Trump and his deer-in-headlights responses to questions he should have been ready for ("was Iraq War a mistake?") show a level of campaign incompetence. When the donors abandon him, he'll drop out.

Rubio's pretty good at debates and in speeches, and he strikes me as someone who could aggressively go after Hillary without alienating large numbers of voters. I don't know if he could get the nomination though.

Rubio has to like where he is sitting -- first place in the real candidate department protected from the reality TV portion of the presidential campaign by Trump and Carson. He can continue to build his organization, raise funds and put himself in the public eye when it favors him.

@MayBee It's different this time because of the Trump/Carson phenomenon. Those who care about getting a political-mainstream candidate need to do something now, because the outsider-protest phenomenon is so strong. It needs a firm, clear answer now. In my opinion, Rubio is the best solution.

Rubio is a terrible non-solution because anyone who thinks that the immigration issue is important knows that he cannot be trusted on that. Many conservatives now understand that this is the most important issue and, like Romney on O'Care, Rubio is the worst choice.

"Rubio's pretty good at debates and in speeches, and he strikes me as someone who could aggressively go after Hillary without alienating large numbers of voters. I don't know if he could get the nomination though."

"Rubio has to like where he is sitting -- first place in the real candidate department protected from the reality TV portion of the presidential campaign by Trump and Carson. He can continue to build his organization, raise funds and put himself in the public eye when it favors him."

True, there's a sort of protection in staying just below the radar. Though if you're going to rise, you'll have to be ready for that spotlight.

I'd say the "undercards" ought to drop out soon--Jindal, Pataki, Graham, Santorum--if they didn't catch fire yet I don't see how they can effectively fundraise and organize enough to make a good showing later. Kasich would make a good president, but clearly isn't catching fire either. Paul, like his father, may stick around but isn't going to rise much, and the votes he's taking won't affect the other candidates either way. Huckabee seems to be mostly taking votes Cruz would have got. Christie I'm not sure about.

I wonder to what extent money drives the decisions on when to get out. Candidates for the Presidency have to raise lots of money and hire lots of staff and make lots of medium-term commitments. Sometimes they announce what amounts to a "stall" in the candidacy just to keep the machine going long enough to pay everyone off. Jeb may be that kind of candidate. Could take a while.

Yes, Scott, Jeb probably would make a good VP, especially if the top guy is a lunatic like Trump or a newbie like Cruz. But then again, Jeb is not a fighter, and they say you need a down-and-dirty fighter in the VP candidacy.

"Rubio is a terrible non-solution because anyone who thinks that the immigration issue is important knows that he cannot be trusted on that. Many conservatives now understand that this is the most important issue and, like Romney on O'Care, Rubio is the worst choice."

If I have a choice between someone who appears to have learned his lesson on that issue, and Hillary who has basically promised to go way farther than any Republican--and use her executive powers where she cannot get Congress to act--I know what my choice is.

As another commenter pointed out, Cartago delenda est. Hillary must be stopped.

I understand why folks are attracted to Trump; I don't understand the appeal of Carson - other than he's a good man, and an accomplished physician.

I agree with Tank that illegal immigration is a critical issue and that Rubio has been squishy on it. However, if Hillary wins, then the illegal floodgates will open wide - as a matter of Democratic policy. So, I think it's more important that Hillary be defeated by any GOP candidate, even Rubio, or Jeb!

Yes, the splintered GOP field should start narrowing. Huckabee, Paul, Jindal, Pataki, Gilmore should drop out and endorse. Walker and Perry should endorse. The splintering of 17 candidates hurts now that Hillary has a clear, unobstructed path to the nomination.

Not to spoil the party here or anything but none of this matters. Trump is gonna win the nomination. He's the man of the moment, an outsider who can appeal to voters in both parties. Dilbert creator Scott Adams is now predicting not just the nomination but the presidency and in a landslide ...65%.

LOL! Biden made a graceful exit by never entering at all. And the glee with which you celebrate Hillary Clinton's disgraceful behavior and imperial haughtiness should be embarrassing to someone who considers herself honest, fair and judicious. Your democrat progressive bias is showing and it makes you look ridiculous.

Biden is just "Biden" his time, until Hillary goes down for her lies in Benghazi and the Emails. THEN he can come out and SAVE the Democrats from Bernie, without losing any of Hillarys supporters. Please...why do you think he announced YESTERDAY in the Rose Garden with Obama?? Hillary is a known Liar...(look at how she got fired when investigating Nixon because she was a known Liar back then) Why anyone would want her as president is beyond me!!

"Those people are not the main target of the proposed Jeb-Rubio consolidation, which is for moderates and mainstreamers like me."

I think our gallant hostess is right about this. She will flirt with voting for a moderate GOP candidate, but ultimately pull the trigger for Hillary. but, in general, I do think she is right . I hope our Conservative friends reach cognition on the fact that, unlike, say, the Governor's race in Texas, where the most Conservative candidate will win, there are too many liberal, moderates, squishy middle-types in the National election to go purely Conservative. Reagan understood this - anybody remember the Reagan-Democrats? Goldwater did not understand this, hence no President Goldwater.

Memo to Conservatives - if you want to win, be flexible. If you want to be really, really, Conservative, then accept losing.

Ann Althouse said..."Althouse- I don't think we know if it's really different this time until we see how people actually turn out to vote in Iowa and New Hampshire."

The risk in waiting is worse. Act now, when it will help.

Right now, Trump has zero votes and I see nothing in this campaign that leads me to believe his vote total will change. Literally. I don't just mean most of his "supporters" won't really vote for him, I mean that when he drops out, it will be with the same number of votes he has today because his name will not be on any ballots.

The mainstream candidate will emerge as the pretenders drop out. I can understand your eagerness to get on with it, but it will happen in its own time. No party gets the best candidate by circling around a "front runner" too early.

"I hope our Conservative friends reach cognition on the fact that, unlike, say, the Governor's race in Texas, where the most Conservative candidate will win, there are too many liberal, moderates, squishy middle-types in the National election to go purely Conservative. Reagan understood this - anybody remember the Reagan-Democrats? Goldwater did not understand this, hence no President Goldwater."

It's also a matter of simple math. While some conservatives plausibly will not bother to vote for a "moderate" Republican and let a leftist Democrat become president, it is implausible that such voters would actually vote for the Democrat. However, a moderate voter who is turned off by a "too conservative" Republican may well not just not vote Republican, but actually vote for the Democrat (if the latter is not seen as too extreme). So the loss of moderates causes twice the damage as the loss of conservatives.

I think also a lot of people (both moderates and conservatives) are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and forgetting that ultimately all the principled votes in the world add up to nothing if your candidate doesn't win. We have to consider our ideal candidate who can actually win, otherwise we're right back to this conversation when Hillary is gearing up for her reelection and we're all blaming each other for how it went wrong in 2016.

And believe me, a Hillary presidency will make us look longingly on the wise and reasonable tenure of Obama.

I'm probably gonna comment way too often and incoherently here because I'm glued to the computer, watching the Hillary/Benghazi hearing. Still only on opening statements. So far, Gowdy and Hillary have emphasized the honor of those four fine men. Cummings is playing bad cop, emphasizing what a horrible bunch of demons, including Gowdy, is.

I don't think people don't think you would vote republican, I think people have been predicting for years that you are all in for a Hillary presidency. Despite an awful and faltering campaign, despite a scandal plagued career, and an ongoing FBI investigation, you are right there with Hillary, sticking your tongue out at republicans, and laughing away because you are so cocksure you are going to win.

Rubio would be ideal in the VP slot for the GOP. He could help win Florida, cut into the Dems advantage with the Hispanic vote and add some youthful vigor to the ticket. But I think he's too young and inexperienced for POTUS, we recently made that mistake.

The problem is who should be at the top of the GOP ticket? An experienced governor from a swing or blue state would make sense in terms of winning the election. I initially thought that Kasich would would fit that bill, but as mentioned here he hasn't caught on. (I doubt that 20% of the electorate could spell his name correctly - I had to check for this comment).

The constitutional problem isn't an outright disqualification, but it's a problem sufficient to prevent the nomination:

Amendment 12: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves...."

This primary season is so weird that there is really no guidance for action here. Should the moderates line up behind one candidate or would that make matters worse giving the chosen one the stink of the establishment? Is Trump unstoppable regardless or is he already doomed and the other candidates just need to ride this out? Would taking Carson seriously actually make him a serious candidate or do you leave him alone and let the electorate realize that he is a good and accomplished man but of dubious as a President? Is this all irrelevant because Hillary is inevitable, or is she going to jail (and really she should already be in jail)? Who knows!

Of course, this all assumes that Jeb is thinking about the best for the party and/or country as opposed to desiring to be President. One typically does not run for President without having an ego. Drop out and support the junior politician from his home state before a single vote is cast? Humiliating!

My guess is any candidate that has the money to stick around until Iowa will do so and see if the Trump and Carson support actually exists or is a polling artifact. Then expect a big shake out once the reality of the race becomes apparent, occurring no later than South Carolina.

AA: Those who care about getting a political-mainstream candidate need to do something now, because the outsider-protest phenomenon is so strong. It needs a firm, clear answer now. In my opinion, Rubio is the best solution.

He's a "solution" in the same way that Romney was a "solution". It was precisely the "outsider-protest phenomenon" in its then nascent, passive form that sank Romney. The GOPe candidates already have the "moderate", "mainstream" vote. It's not enough to win.

But as someone who takes the long view that clearing away the GOP deadwood is an unavoidable step in the salutary re-alignment of American politics (going on even as we speak), I'd have to agree that Rubio is, indeed, the best "solution" for the Republicans.

Brando: I think also a lot of people (both moderates and conservatives) are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and forgetting that ultimately all the principled votes in the world add up to nothing if your candidate doesn't win.

That particular cliché ("the perfect...") is awfully popular with the party faithful these days. But if "Hillary delenda est" is what matters most, then it works just as well as an admonition to get behind Trump as it does as a plea to support Rubio (or whomever). If things shaped up such that Trump appeared to have as good as, or a better, chance of winning the national election than any of your preferred candidates (and that's not as absurd a hypothetical as some people like to think it is), I trust you'd be willing to swallow your own bromides.

Hillary just said "counselate" twice in testimony. That rhymes with "downs-il-it". She either doesn't know the spelling of the word "consulate" or doesn't know how to pronounce it. Maybe it's that danged Southern accent.

Rubio has the youthful vigor that can make Hillary look old, and he's got the ethnic distinction that can overshadow Hillary's proffered first-ness.

I understand why he's considered electable, but "young" and "ethnic" just don't seem like particularly meaningful qualifications for the presidency. Sure, maybe that's what the voters are looking for (cf. Obama), but I just can't get behind him. In all honesty, I'm not sure I'd vote for him over Clinton II. Even if I agreed with his policies, he just seems so inexperienced. Maybe because he looks even younger than he is.

Of course, I'm not really the voter the Republican establishment needs to win over -- I'd find it hard to vote for Carson or Trump either. Bush III, I could imagine voting for (but he has not persuaded me yet). Fiorina, I am open to. Cruz, I find lawyer-ish and offputting . . . hmm. Honestly, there's a lot of options but none of them seems particularly confidence-inspiring.

We may not like it, but identity politics is a huge thing. I don't think that the Republican Party should turn into a cult of personality they way the Democrats have. There should be many people who could do the job of POTUS in our part. But alas, the America we live in, identity politics is a fact. So better to take somebody who agrees with us on most issues *and* brings votes from identity politics. I a Rubio Carson ticket would win in a landslide, and would be conservative enough.

Carson is far more authentically black, in the sense of the American black experience, than Obama ever was, and will resonate with evangelicals and, in case nobody has noticed, black Americans, who also still say grace before eating in large numbers.

I am an atheist myself, but I don't feel threatened by Christians and see them as allies in a common struggle.

Jeb! Is toxic and his endorsement of any other candidate, should he drop out, would be the ruin of that other candidate. Better to think of which other candidate you want to lose, and promote the idea that Jeb should endorse that person.

To all the people who don't think Trump supporters won't have the right stuff to sit through the Iowa caucuses: You haven't seen a line of Trump supporters waiting in 90 degree heat in early September in Rochester, N.H. to get into an even hotter high school gym or seen them stand in line in near freezing temps in Tyngsborough, Mass. while waiting to get into a grammar school gym with bleacher seating for their comfort.

Althouse, who is surrounded by leftists day in and day out, imagines she's moderate and mainstream. Is there something special about a law prof that allows her to contemplate a Hillary candidacy without laying out a case that, as a career criminal, Hillary should be in jail not walking around free, with secret service protection, paid for by us.

This list is going to get longer everyday but Hillary delenda est, Democrats delenda est, Republicans delenda est, and now I think Academe delenda est.

The GOP is actually in favor of Mexican and Central American Hispanic immigration, says Eric Cantor in a BBC interview, and he also says he won the GOP vote in Virginia. Those pesky Dems who crossed over to vote him out were his problem, not immigration. And by the way Trump is not a GOP Conservative either.

Who knew. Open borders is monetary internationalism supported by true GOP conservatives. Trump is too pro American for them. Oh oh, I said American when Cantor would say the North American Province.

I don't think people don't think you would vote republican, I think people have been predicting for years that you are all in for a Hillary presidency. Despite an awful and faltering campaign, despite a scandal plagued career, and an ongoing FBI investigation, you are right there with Hillary, sticking your tongue out at republicans, and laughing away because you are so cocksure you are going to win.

Really? I think Althouse has actually been pretty skeptical of Clinton over the years. I feel like I'm a bigger backer of Clinton II than she is, even after my enthusiasm has waned (significantly) after her mismanagement of the Benghazi affair.

Other than Benghazi, I feel like most of the scandals are a bit of a sideshow. Yes, even the emails. After all, Wikileaks and the OPM hack captured huge volumes of data off our wonderfully secure government-run servers, so I find it difficult to muster all that much outrage about her using an unsecured personal server. Unlike those jokers at the EPA and so on who were clearly using personal email to circumvent FOIA, her use of her personal server seems to have been pretty open and notorious since she didn't even get a state.gov email address set up in the first place. Although I'm sure she was keen on not having her emails discoverable through the FOIA process too, as would generally be true of all government officials, I am sure.

My problem with the server isn't so much that it was insecure, it is that her only possible motive for it was to have the power to destroy communications she doesn't want to come out in an investigation.

On immigration, one thing that's frustrating is the continuing, intentional effort to elide the difference between legal immigrants -- who respected our sovereignty and laws -- and illegal immigrants whose first move one passing into the US was to crap all over our laws. It will no doubt come as a shock to some open borders supporters, but Mexicans and other Latin Americans are perfectly capable of complying with US immigration laws! Just look at the stats there. Not all immigrants to the US are illegal immigrants!

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Or Obama could simply choose not to enforce the law against a fellow Democrat.

If true that you voted for Romney in '12 and Bush in '04, I can alllllmost forgive your vote for Obama in 2008. It still makes you look like a complete sucker though. A sucker in terrible company, no less.

"That particular cliché ("the perfect...") is awfully popular with the party faithful these days. But if "Hillary delenda est" is what matters most, then it works just as well as an admonition to get behind Trump as it does as a plea to support Rubio (or whomever). If things shaped up such that Trump appeared to have as good as, or a better, chance of winning the national election than any of your preferred candidates (and that's not as absurd a hypothetical as some people like to think it is), I trust you'd be willing to swallow your own bromides."

I would. And despite everyone's threats to "stay home" I believe they would too. I can't remember ever having my "ideal" candidate as a nominee in the general election, but have had to swallow the bile and vote anyway when the alternative was significantly worse.

My problem with the server isn't so much that it was insecure, it is that her only possible motive for it was to have the power to destroy communications she doesn't want to come out in an investigation.

Sure, but that's an age-old concern. Lord Salisbury once had copies of a memo typed up in-room and then distributed in a cabinet meeting. After his colleagues had read it, he had all the copies thrown in the fire. And in a perhaps somewhat closer analogue to the current situation, he kept the records of all his correspondence while he was Foreign Secretary (which post he held during most of his long premiership), at his ancestral manor, Hatfield, rather than at the Foreign Office. Officials are always trying to circumvent disclosure. The preferred approach these days is to send obscure emails saying things like "call me" or "we need to talk" or leaving voicemails saying the same.

I'm not going to defend her behaviour affirmatively -- obviously we put laws like FOIA in place for a reason, and that reason was to terrorise our officials by reminding them that they are our servants. It's just hard for me to get outraged by the server.

"I think our gallant hostess is right about this. She will flirt with voting for a moderate GOP candidate, but ultimately pull the trigger for Hillary. but, in general, I do think she is right . I hope our Conservative friends reach cognition on the fact that, unlike, say, the Governor's race in Texas, where the most Conservative candidate will win, there are too many liberal, moderates, squishy middle-types in the National election to go purely Conservative. Reagan understood this - anybody remember the Reagan-Democrats? Goldwater did not understand this, hence no President Goldwater."

You guys are misunderstanding the electorate. The electorate doesn't want a "moderate." The zeitgeist is described as a sliding bar between liberal and conservative with moderates in the middle. This is garbage. They want someone who actually cares about what the electorate wants. The electorate wants our politics to stop being dominated by big money. There are a variety of issues that swing all over the place. But the electorate is not "moderate" on immigration or gun control for example.

Trump is seeing this more clearly than the rest. His politics are all over the place on the liberal-conservative spectrum and incidentally that makes him the most "moderate" pol up there. The electorate overwhelmingly thinks the game is rigged by rich people and wants someone to shake it up.

I'm ready for President Trump. And, unlike some of the pickled old doom-sayers, I think he'll do a great job. As good as Reagan, if not better. Trump believes in America, and I think the policies he's espoused so far come from a place of sincerity that is normally hidden from the public. I've listened to some of his speeches in their entirety, and I did not come away with the impression that he was a clown, or a farce, or unserious. Everyone calling him that is just voicing their own hopes that he'll go away because . . . . reasons.

Whether you're in the Rubio or Trump wing, ultimately one group is going to have to accept a candidate they're not thrilled with, and accept that the Dem nominee--who is now beyond question going to be one of the most corrupt and incompetent nominees the Dems have put up in modern times--is a far worse prospect than your least preferred GOP candidate. The Dems seem to get this--they don't tear at each other the way GOPers do, and are even (crazily, I think) lining up behind Hillary despite her unethical, dishonest and possibly criminal behavior, and willingness to throw every one of them under the bus. The Dems are far more scared of GOP control than the GOP is of Dem control.

Hopefully this primary doesn't get ugly enough to hobble whoever has to face her. The GOP made Obama's job easy back in 2012, and Hillary's smear team does not need any help.

I think Jeb is toast also, but does Rubio really have a chance?? I doubt it.

Scott Walker would have been head and shoulders over Rubio.

Rubio's main asset is that he's young, cute and a Hispanic. I don't think he's going to get the serious voters. He was always in this for the VP slot.

Rubio has two main problems. He is too young and cute! He does not look presidential at all, and he has virtually no meaningful experience. Trump trumps him there. The second of his main problems is that he is not on the right side of the immigration issue, which appears to be decisive at this point. If Walker had come out more strongly and consistently on that, he would still be in the race. So what does he really have over Jeb Bush except a last name that's not "Bush"?

We have a problem, but let the voters decide. Sanders is doing Hillary a huge favor by shifting her campaign rhetoric more to the left (appealing to the base), and we are better off letting the GOP candidate salad be tossed by the electoral process to try to get some sort of meaningful agenda set.

I do passionately wish that Hillary were not such a slimeball, but like everyone else, I will have to roll with the electoral punches.

I began this electoral cycle willing to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican candidate with some real governing background and any sort of ethics. That need should not have been too hard to satisfy, but it's not going to happen. And Rubio doesn't fill my bill.

Rubio is the Hispanic version of Obama. He's not a crook, he's very light on the experience, and he has a bunch of inspirational ideas with no clue how to take care of the store. The Democratic party has taken severe hits over Obama's presidential career - he may be Teflon, but the grease that slides off has stuck to the state and Congressional Dems and formed a toxic oil slick. The GOP would probably be better off not trying to reproduce that recipe.

In the end, we have to govern this country. We have to reach a consensus on how to deal with immigration, joblessness, and an ever-growing gap in social funding sustainability. As close as I am to assuming the fetal position over this campaign cycle, I suspect it is better to let it run its course.

The Trump deniers remind me of the poll-deniers in our last election. I was among them. I simply could not believe, through the day of the election, that Obama's lead was what the pollsters kept saying it was, or that somehow, some way, Romney wouldn't come through. With Trump it's the opposite. I can't believe the poll numbers really mean what they show on their face. But this time, I'm keeping my mouth shut until those numbers are actually tested. Because the numbers may mean what they look like they mean, whether I like it or not.

In fact, every GOP candidate who is not Trump or Carson, should look around right now and figure out who, other than himself, he should support.

I'd venture that each one, with the possible exception of Trump, has already considered that question, and has made his tentative choice. However, until the pool of hopefuls has been winnowed down to three or four the candidate does himself and the process no favors by revealing it.

Love your service to our country (myself, served in Reagan/Bush era) and probably agree with you on most policies . On politics, though, (don't shoot me:) I think you may be off. Here's why:

You guys are misunderstanding the electorate. The electorate doesn't want a "moderate."

At the presidential level, respectfully, the electorate does mostly want a moderate. Since 1964, there's only been 1 Conservative Prez -- Reagan. The rest were moderates. And, Reagan, people forget this, pulled Democrats in from the center over to his side. Even GW Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative," because Rove understood it would be a close election, decided by the mushy middle. Heck, Florida was decided by old retired folks at Denny's, who accidentally cast their butterfly ballots for Pat Buchanan:)

The zeitgeist is described as a sliding bar between liberal and conservative with moderates in the middle. This is garbage.

I used to listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh when I was in the Navy, I used to believe this, too, but now I don't.

The USA is a lot less Conservative than it used to be. A lot. Take California as an example, home of Nixon and Reagan. In the 80s, I had the divine pleasure of voting for Reagan as Prez and George Deukmejian as governor, both of whom were rocked-ribbed right-wingers, who tried to govern that way too. And, I took exceptional joy that both won 2 terms, and helped get their successors elected. In the 80s, California was practically a paradise.

Sadly, those days, though, are over. The demographics have changed. Latinos, women, gays, government unions are on the political ascent; while the small business owners are fleeing.

With the exception of Texas and the solid South, much of the country has followed in California's direction, although not as drastically.

The electorate wants our politics to stop being dominated by big money.

The Left certainly wants this, but does the Right? Citizens United is all about promoting more speech (i.e., more money) into politics. I love Citizens United, while Obama hates it.

In general, we all want to see a more conservative government, and populace. The big question is strategy and tactics on how to accomplish this. I don't claim to know. But I do like hashing it out with you guys.

Trump is a Democrat.Carson is a good man, but Democrats WILL NOT vote for a black conservative, no matter what. And I think Obama has poisoned the well for a lot of independents for the forseeable future.Fiorina... sooner or later someone is going to ask her about her Iranian contraband deals. Probably right after she gets the nom or VP pick, if it's up to the Democrats.

But the Howard Beale voters are determined to throw their TVs out the window and send a message to people who aren't listening anyway.

"anyone who thinks that the immigration issue is important knows that he cannot be trusted on that. Many conservatives now understand that this is the most important issue" Absolutely nuts. The most important issue? The Republicans right now have a chance to capture all three parts of the federal government, and actually get some things done. There are loads of issues that pretty much all Republicans agree on, and pretty much all Democrats disagree. On most of them, the average voting American agrees with the Republicans. Leaning on those issues is the way to win.Then, once Republicans control the federal government and have taken care of those issues [one of which is building a functional wall on the Mexican border], it would be time to see if we can build a bipartisan consensus on what to do with illegal aliens who are already here.Or, you can make that the "most important issue" and lose.

Note that the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2004. What did they do with it? A couple of Supreme Court Justices and carried on with the war in Iraq. And No Child Left Behind, which has done a lot of harm to American schools. Was there nothing else that Republicans agreed on?Are they planning to do that again?

The problem with Trump is he's unelectable. The Hildebeast vs. The Donald would be grand entertainment for the Euro-Weenies but tragic for America because too many independents would either stay home or swing left on election day. The Trump faithful need to face this.They must realize that in the end they must choose a person. Up to now Trump has been a symbol, an expression of the disgust engendered by a political class that has stolen our republic of laws and given us a regime of lies, a nation ruled by degree where presidential whim has the force of law, and laws are treated as instruments of expediency to be enforced or ignored depending on political needs of a tiny cabal of hacks and cronies. Symbols have their uses, but symbolic candidates tend to lose when the ballots are cast.

I must admit that I've never liked Donald Trump. His bombast and wandering rhetoric, while not actually repellant have left a mostly negative impression. To me he's like the kind of person who spoils the sports bar scene, the type who cheers at the top of his lungs whenever his team scores or sacks the opposing quarterback, and swears and bangs the table whenever his team suffers a reverse, the type who asks for your opinion and insults you when you voice it.

Brando: ...ultimately one group is going to have to accept...that the Dem nominee...is a far worse prospect than your least preferred GOP candidate.

No, that's what you believe and accept. Apparently, electorally significant numbers of once reliably Republican-voting people aren't buying that.

(And while it may be emotionally satisfying to flounce around huffing "I hope you're happy you got Obama elected twice!", and "You're going to get Hillary good and hard and you'll deserve everything you get!" at people like that, it doesn't change the reality of the "fed-ups" who aren't biting.)

The Dems seem to get this...

The Dems have their own problems with what will become a more and more unstable base. No, what the Dems get, and the Reps don't, is that you should

(1) pander to the people whose votes you need, while hiding any contempt you actually feel toward them, and

(2) insult and harass the people whose votes you're not going to get, if that helps you with (1).

The Republicans seem to keep getting these two targets confused.

Also, Dems don't give a rat's what Reps think of them, and are serenely impervious to concern-trolling from the right. But Reps spend all their energy getting rolled by concern-trolling from the left. Which ought to tell you something about the uselessness of Reps.

...they don't tear at each other the way GOPers do...

"Each other" implies that there's an "us" in there, somewhere. I don't think there is.

I have never registered as a member of any political party, and I have no allegiances to either one. I worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008, and I walked away vowing to never vote for her. I haven't changed my mind. Whether I vote for the Republican candidate in 2016 depends on whether they give me someone to vote for. Just being "not Hillary" isn't enough. Rubio isn't it. No track record of showing he knows how to get things done. He doesn't even have a track record for showing up. I'm one of the "moderates" the party is supposed to be courting. I have no litmus test on any issue. No candidate is going to represent all of my views, and I'm mature enough to know that. I'll settle for someone who has demonstrated a good work ethic and some executive level competence.

"The most important issue? The Republicans right now have a chance to capture all three parts of the federal government, and actually get some things done. There are loads of issues that pretty much all Republicans agree on, and pretty much all Democrats disagree. On most of them, the average voting American agrees with the Republicans. Leaning on those issues is the way to win."

Absolutely. We can argue over whether the GOP will "sell out" when they take over, but the fact is if they don't have functional control in DC then it's absolutely certain that no conservative reforms (tax reform, entitlement reform, anything on immigration) will take place. And we have to accept the fact that if the moderates break left, that's it--the Dems win. And as frustrating as "RINOs" are, you have a better shot with them at least some of the time than you do with a typical Democrat. Example--Mike Castle, hated by the Tea Party for being a RINO, did in fact vote against the stimulus and the ACA--two of the most important votes of the Obama era. By getting the laughably unelectable Christine O'Donnell to replace him, it handed a sure thing election to Chris Coons. Does anyone think Coons--a blue state Democrat--has any reason to vote against any part of the Obama agenda? Are conservatives better off with Coons than Castle? Remember, O'Donnell simply was a nonstarter in Delaware. This wasn't Texas, or even Missouri.

MikeR said...Note that the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2004. What did they do with it? A couple of Supreme Court Justices and carried on with the war in Iraq. And No Child Left Behind, which has done a lot of harm to American schools. Was there nothing else that Republicans agreed on?Are they planning to do that again?

10/22/15, 2:36 PM

Putting good justices on The Supreme Court is an important and consequential responsibility of an administration. Carrying on the war in Iraq was crucial to maintaining the gains and establishing order in the country. We've seen what happened there since Obama's celebrated withdrawal. No Child Left behind was a Ted Kennedy sponsored bill and Bush and Boehner were all in on it. Will republicans enact democrat party legislation again? Let's hope not.

In 2006, democrats took control of congress again and made Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. Their first act as a majority party was to circle the wagons around rep. William Jefferson-LA, and obstruct an FBI investigation for bribery and other crimes which later resulted in a thirteen year prison sentence for the democrat party congressman. If democrats get control of congress, are they going to obstruct justice on behalf of the felons in their party again? I don't know, let's ask Bernie Sanders, let's ask Elijah Cummings, let's ask Chuck Schumer- Don't bother asking Lady Clinton, she'll only laugh in your face.

"Those people are not the main target of the proposed Jeb-Rubio consolidation, which is for moderates and mainstreamers like me".

Again the "law prof" (surely a misnomer) proves to be the light- weight legal scholar she has always been, by supporting an ineligible non natural born candidate (and no, Jeb cannot be Rubio's VP--12th Amendment-- she seems to think the Constitution is just a suggestion).

There has NEVER been a POTUS that was born of 2 NON US Citizen parents (except for those grandfathered in by "or a citizen at the time..."). Rubio was naturalized at birth by 8 US Code 1401, since he was born of legal resident parents, who had allegiance due to that legal residence, thus Rubio was born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment--- The holding of Wong Kim Ark on pg. 693, and is a CITIZEN of the US.He would not have been even considered a US Citizen before 1898 at the time he was born, much less a natural born Citizen. He is a citizen by statute, and here is what the State Dept. says about that:

7FAM 1131.6-2(d)This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included inmodern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a naturalborn citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she issuch a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

The only constitutional purpose of the term is related to eligibility for the Presidency.

Here is SCOTUS holding as to the definition of natural born Citizen:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162, 167 (1875) See also Wong Kim Ark @ 680, See also The Venus, See also Shanks v. Dupont, See also Dred Scott.

SCOTUS has defined natural born Citizen MANY TIMES as one born in the US of US Citizen parents, mirroring the Original Common Law (law of nations). It has NEVER defined it as anything else.

Of course the "law prof" wants to vote for an ineligible candidate for the 3rd straight time. It makes you wonder what those kids could possibly be learning, if the "law prof can't grasp a simple concept of natural law (US Original Common Law)

poker1one said...To all the people who don't think Trump supporters won't have the right stuff to sit through the Iowa caucuses: You haven't seen a line of Trump supporters waiting in 90 degree heat in early September in Rochester, N.H. to get into an even hotter high school gym or seen them stand in line in near freezing temps in Tyngsborough, Mass. while waiting to get into a grammar school gym with bleacher seating for their comfort. 10/22/15, 11:39 AM

The thing about that is, Trump is not just a candidate for president-- he's a TV star! Folks in Tyngsborough and Rochester and Rutland and White River Junction have been watching Trump on television for years. They've been saying "You're fired" so long it's become a catch phrase. He's a celebrity! Folks in small towns and suburbs far from Hollywood would come out to see him whether he was selling a book or giving a speech or just having lunch at the Dairy Queen with Marla Maples. The only way you're going to top the celebrity of a TV star is if you have the celebrity of a movie star. And there is one such movie star capable of eclipsing The Donald. A notable republican with some governing experience- Although there may be some Constitutional kerfuffle over birthright eligibility, in this age when Kenyans and Canadians can run for the presidency, I don't see the issue as insurmountable... You know who I'm talking about- He'll be back!

In which case, kindly tell your wing of the party to shut the **** up about how wonderful Jim Webb would be as an independent if Trump takes the nomination. Because it's a little damn old that it's always my side of the party that has to take it up the ass from the other side of the party, because team player in MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER.

And especially for Webb! If you would consider voting for Webb then all the hand-wringing bullshit about loyalty pledges and 'not really a conservative' goes straight out the window like it's Prague, 1618.

Really? I think Althouse has actually been pretty skeptical of Clinton over the years. I feel like I'm a bigger backer of Clinton II than she is, even after my enthusiasm has waned (significantly) after her mismanagement of the Benghazi affair.

Other than Benghazi, I feel like most of the scandals are a bit of a sideshow. Yes, even the emails. After all, Wikileaks and the OPM hack captured huge volumes of data off our wonderfully secure government-run servers, so I find it difficult to muster all that much outrage about her using an unsecured personal server... 10/22/15, 11:46 AM

Maybe so, maybe so- I like to razz Althouse a little, rattle the cage, spitball the teacher once in a while, ya know, cause I'm a miscreant. I don't hold her votes for or against her- She's explained her reasons to us several times and really didn't have to even once. I really enjoy her blog and that's all that matters. Sometimes I agree with her politics, sometimes not- it's alright. As far as Hillary goes, you're right that Althouse does not shy away from criticizing her highness, lampooning her pretensions or highlighting a lowlight. But, as Shelby Steele once described his sympathies for the Confederate army, I think Althouse's heart beats a little faster when she's talking about Hillary.

Oh, and as far as my opinion of the server/emails- The problem is the cover-up. What is she hiding? We know she tried to delete everything around September/October 2011. The more emails that get discovered, the more incompetence and dishonesty it uncovers. Benghazi is the same. An attack on an embassy in a war-torn Arab country is to be expected. The issue is the administrations response, and the subsequent lies and deceptions. For all the squealing about all the committees the big bad republicans have put together to "get" her highness, there are numerous questions yet to be answered, and numerous actions still to be answered for. The thing is, these scandals are just more symptoms of her innate corruption and dishonesty. Just in her tenure as Sec of State, did she not facilitate sales of uranium interests to Russian nationals through her brother Tony? Then there's the many "donations" to Bill and Hill Foundation for Global Graft and Kickbacks. Her performance as secretary of State was disastrous as well: the Russian reset button, Arab Springtime for Hitler, turning Libya into a terrorist state, etc. And finally, I would never consider voting for any politician, much less president, who shows such bigoted vile ignorant contempt for her fellow Americans that she would declare that they were her public enemy number one.

Usually candidates leave when the money runs out. That will happen with Bernie soon enough. Hillary has the nomination. The hearings today are not going to touch her or change any minds about her. They will help herby giving her a national forum in which she will do reasonably well.

Because Jeb is well funded, he does not have to drop now. A set of Jeb-Rubio-Trump-Carson primaries could still benefit him, though Jeb is a bit of a long shot. But Jeb can't self fund, so he's weak. Plus Rubio will be stronger if he wins some elections over Jeb, rather than elevating through a capitulation.

We could still get a third party candidate this year, but from the right not the left.

That deep Republican bench is looking like less of an asset than the Democratic Sedan Chair for Hillary.

Just Trump? Seriously, if Romney wasn't electable, why do you think anybody in this season's line-up is? Because everybody's sick of Obama and Hillary's a much weaker candidate than Obama? I think you're grossly over-estimating the appeal of Rubio, etc. to people outside the party faithful.

The Hildebeast vs. The Donald would be grand entertainment for the Euro-Weenies but tragic for America because too many independents would either stay home or swing left on election day.

Sorry, but you can replace "The Donald" above with anybody else in the line-up and get the same scenario.

You know what's tragic for America, Quaestor? That we have a two-party system where one party is the Democrats and the other party thinks it's all the stupid worthless voters fault when they lose elections.

(And I fear Europeans may have much more serious "entertainment" compelling their attention next year.)

The Trump faithful need to face this.They must realize that in the end they must choose a person. Up to now Trump has been a symbol, an expression of the disgust engendered by a political class that has stolen our republic of laws and given us a regime of lies, a nation ruled by degree where presidential whim has the force of law, and laws are treated as instruments of expediency to be enforced or ignored depending on political needs of a tiny cabal of hacks and cronies. Symbols have their uses, but symbolic candidates tend to lose when the ballots are cast.

[Rolling eyes] Why do people keep rolling out this stupid, pompous shit about what all those deluded voters out there "must" do and "must accept"? The "Trump faithful" don't "need" to do anything but cast (or not cast) their votes as they see fit.

Remarkably enough, I've even encountered a few of them who bear not the slightest resemblance to the rage-addled LIVs now haunting your fervid imagination. In fact, truth to tell, I see little evidence that they skew any stupider, or are less-informed and more emotion-driven, than the party faithful. Less amenable to persuasion by pompous finger-wagging, possibly.

One problem with Althouse's strategy is that it could work in getting Rubio the nomination but it would create a party-destroying split if Rubio lost to Hillary.

If Hillary is going to be our next president (as seems likely now), her complete wrecking of Trump would be a cold glass of ice reality in the faces of the anti-establishment. Also, when the election eve polls show Clinton running away with it, the electorate may feel comfortable keeping the House and Senate in Republican hands for ideological balance. Part of the reason Obama was able to do as much damage as he did his first two years was because the Democrats controlled Congress, too, and that only happened because the presidency was a toss-up.

Obviously a Rubio presidency would be better than a Hillary one, but a Rubio loss would be catastrophic.

And, I took exceptional joy that both won 2 terms, and helped get their successors elected. In the 80s, California was practically a paradise.

I did too but that was in the days when our future was bright. I think we are headed into the storm with a large millennial clueless set of passengers who are going to get badly hurt. I doubt the next election matters that much although I wish it did. I think the last chance to get out of this fix was Romney and the country decided to take a vacation.

Take a look at Europe. I'm not sure I'll ever go back although I have enjoyed visiting Europe for 30 years.

I think Jeb ought never have run, and that his presence in the race has been pernicious and destructive to the GOP's interests.

So yes, he should withdraw.

I think this not because of any of his policies, nor any of his personal qualities save one -- his surname, which is disqualifying (whether it ought to be or not). Dem voters will indeed turn out to perpetuate a Clinton dynasty, but the rest of American won't turn out to perpetuate a Bush one. It's exactly that simple, and it's obvious even to Barbara, so I don't know why Jeb (and, apparently, Dubya) can't get that.

But endorse Rubio? Why, because Rubio was a protegee or colleague in Florida? Meh. Ted Cruz was Texas Solicitor General while Rick Perry was Texas Governor. Do you think Perry ought to have endorsed Cruz for that reason when Perry dropped out? Or, put it this way: Were you surprised that he didn't?

This GOP convention is likely to be George H.W. Bush's last, realistically, given his age and health concerns. I hope he, Barbara, and both sons get some fond attention at the convention. But only on Throwback Thursday, or the convention equivalent of that.

Must be so frustrating that Hillary! broke so many laws yet Republicans can't nail her on a single one. Maybe they are treading lightly because they don't want to end up dead l8ke Vince Foster. #ClintonBodyCount

Mega-disaster Romney demonstrated that if you stick around long enough, you can be people's overall sixth or seventh pick, watching everyone but you be the favorite, and still get the delegates you need.

Yes, it is. It's the sine qua non for all the other issues you claim to care about. No control of immigration, and you can kiss all the other things you claim to care about goodbye.

Then, once Republicans control the federal government and have taken care of those issues [one of which is building a functional wall on the Mexican border], it would be time to see if we can build a bipartisan consensus on what to do with illegal aliens who are already here.

The last thing in the world the Republicans want to do is build a functional wall on the southern border. We already have a robust "bipartisan" consensus on "what to do with illegal aliens", and that is to provide blanket rolling amnesties to those already here, thereby providing incentives (one among many) to keep the tsunami coming. The only thing slowing this down are those awful people you're complaining about, who throw a monkey wrench in your heroes' plans when they can manage it. If you actually listened to what the candidates had to say about this (that is, when they aren't engaging in increasingly lame attempts at base-appeasing bullshit), and the think-tank prats who shill for them, you would know this. Where people get the idea that "the Republicans want to control immigration but the Democrats won't let them", I do not know.

Prof. Althouse is right on the money. Trump is going to win the nomination unless the non-Trumps coalesce very quickly behind another candidate. I don't think there's any time to waste. No candidate is perfect, but Rubio is perfectly acceptable and would give the witch some difficulty.

As for immigration? On my list of top ten issues, it comes in at number 20. I don't like illegal immigration, I don't like the disrespect for the law that it breeds, I just don't buy all the crap about how it's killing us economically and socially.

I agree that the US isn't as conservative as it once was. I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The US isn't as conservative or progressive as it once was. It is more classically liberal though. Most people out here just want to be left alone, go to work, come home watch a football game with a few beers, and be comfortable to do it.

The federal government has increased massively in size and scope over the last 7 decades since the New Deal. Americans have always been inherently distrustful of government. But both parties like more government. One of them pretends to want smaller government to get votes and then passes medicare part B. The parties have grown fat like ticks sucking the vigor and vitality out of this country.

Democrats are openly owned by crony interests and the Republicans are junior partners sucking up the scraps. The electorate wants an end to the corporate cronyism. They are tired of tax carve outs for the big businesses while they get squeezed. It is plainly obvious that Hillary is going to raise taxes on everyone else so she can give Goldman Sachs more 0% interest loans, or GE more "green energy" subsidies.

Americans have always believed in fairness and opportunity. They feel rightly that opportunity is being taken from them by big money donors buying rules that favor them. This is not ideological from a conservative/liberal point of view. This is plutocrats versus the proles. Similar to the founding of this country this will be a revolution that ends up with less government one way or another.